| |||||||||||||
Gentoo debates recruitment schemesGentoo debates recruitment schemesPosted Jul 21, 2012 5:49 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)Parent article: Gentoo debates recruitment schemes
the concerns about someone tinkering with ebuilds without dealing with the maintainer, or tweaking core packages, etc are exactly what DVCS systems like git are good for. Let them go ahead and produce their tweaks, it does no harm until it gets merged with the main repository. You need people policing such merges, not trying to police the generation of the variants.
If the ebuild maintainers need to be involved in any case, then they should approve the merges that change any e-builds they maintain.
for the core system, you need a benevalent dictator, or a team of such (depending on rate of change and trust)
The key is that you are changing the "gentoo developer" status from being an all-or-nothing type of thing to a degree of trust type of thing, where the amount of trust may be different in different areas.
For example, in kernel development David M is highly trusted to make changes in the networking area, but if he started sending patchsets in that made changes in filesystem, memory management core, syspend/restrore, etc without calling the changes out as such and working with the maintainers of those sections, he would get blasted for doing so. (not picking on David M, just using him as an example)
(Log in to post comments)
Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Posted Aug 3, 2012 16:26 UTC (Fri) by shentino (subscriber, #76459) [Link]
The problem with using DVCS is data bloat.
The portage tree by its nature consists of files with limited lifetimes, because ebuilds are inherently volatile.
They get created when new versions of the software they control are released, and are deleted periodically when no longer needed.
This creates a lot of churn with file addition and removal that is highly atypical compared to standard repository usage.
I think that this is one of the few cases where CVS is a superior solution.
Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Posted Aug 3, 2012 17:44 UTC (Fri) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link]
That doesn't make sense. CVS is terrible with file addition and removal -- you can't delete directories and it has no concept of file renames. Git, on the other hand, fully supports renames or even the fact that a new file is substantially similar to an old one. And, critically, changes like adding, deleting, or moving files can be represented as all being part of a single changeset, which CVS cannot do.
Openembedded is using Git just fine and that seems like very similar usage to the portage tree.
Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Posted Aug 3, 2012 17:47 UTC (Fri) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]
Plus, if you actually care all that much about the data transfer, you can use shallow clones.
|
|||||||||||||